How can God's love be unconditional if it requires
the follower to repent and...

But you know what? I was wrong. The Trinity is not illogical. No more than something like "non dualism" is illogical.Just because some parts of the Biblical description of God might seem logical to you does not mean that the entire theory of God's existence is rational. It's like saying that the overall story of Snow White makes sense because the princess going into coma is very possible.

Yes it most certainly can be.Free will refers to the purely rational decisions one concludes. The instinct to act on those decisions is not a part of free will. My instinct to act according to my rational decisions is not something that I can resist.

Huh? Are you saying that people who believe in more than the empirical world don't learn or get conditioned? You aren't making sense about something here.No, I'm saying that ppl who deny the empirical process, USE the empirical process on a second-by-second basis, despite their cognitive dissonant attitude about it. Just because they apply the process incorrectly doesn't mean that they're not trying to use it.

No they don't. For example, babies assume that if they can't see you, you can't see them. ENTIRELY non empirical.That's not nonempirical. That's learned behavior that they assumed would work because it worked on inanimate objects. Trial and error. Sooner or later, they're going to learn that it doesn't apply to other objects or creatures.

Except for the fact that they DON'T always. Not only that, but it doesn't always mean that it leads to a more "correct" conclusion.I never claimed that they did.

So what does a person who kills someone in cold blood deserve?A punishment that sends the message to both him AND society that killing in cold blood is wrong in all cases.

You are confusing what "would happen" with what "should happen". Just because some of the population would mistakenly apply justice, or that it might instigate people to just "decide for themselves" who gets to be murdered or raped, independent of real justice, doesn't mean that that is what they should do.This is not about mistakenly applying justice. This is about the Punisher (God) sending the message that no one is above the law (killing when not in self-defense), not even the Executioner.

The only point you are really making is that perfect justice, instituted by humans, gets misconstrued and then misused by other humans.This doesn't have anything to do with it. And even if it did, God's justice can just as easily be misconstrued by humans as human justice. So your point wouldn't apply even if that was what I was concerned about.

The fact is that a person that kills someone deserves to be killed. That this causes a problem in every day life, where people simply misconstrue it and take the same action where it SHOULDN'T, doesn't mean that it isn't actual justice. No. People deserve back what they put out.No one deserves to be killed. The whole point of instituting a law that states the non-defensive killing is wrong is to tell the world that no one, not even God, should have the right to take a life. Making exceptions to the rules delegitimizes the spirit of the law..---You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard{Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite}

#132hunter_gohanPosted 11/10/2012 2:56:49 PM

Systemafunk posted...

God will show mercy if and only if you are honestly repentant and have truly accepted Christ into your life (the latter actually causes the former). In a human justice system, this would be impossible. Judge: :Are you really sorry for what you have done, and are willing to try to change your ways" Criminal (lying): "Yes Judge:" Obviously, that doesn't work. Why? Because God ACTUALLY knows the heart. Even if you don't actually believe in God, you have to admit that omniscience WOULD change that. Likewise, God's omniscience makes God's justice actually just.

Ah, ok I see why you would say the omniscience factors in. Quick question though, what happens to people who do not accept Christ into their life because they don't believe he was anything more than a 1st century Jewish carpenter/Rabbi, but who are honestly repentant for what they've done wrong?

Of course, if you want to personally entertain the notion that God is secretly evil or deceptive, go right ahead, but that is not the point of THIS discussion.

What secret? The bible doesn't even try to hide the fact that he utilizes genocide, and, at the very least, doesn't have a problem with slavery and rape. Those are not things people would normally ascribe to a morally good being. Too many people don't have a problem throwing on a blindfold and saying that their favorite being is exempt and can do all the evil things he wants while still be morally good though.

This is a discussion about the Christian understanding of God. It is accepting, for the purposes of discussion, the hypothetical situation that God exists, and is best understood through the progression of the OT and culminating with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But that was in reply to me calling him unjust. Are you saying we must ignore his actions and accept the claim that he is just err just because? I'm sure Hitler and Stalin also claimed that they were just. In fact, Stalin gave himself the title "Gardener of Human Happiness". Must we now ignore all his actions and assume he is in fact the Gardener of Human Happiness?

This is sounding suspiciously familiar to an old argument. The fact is that you can't selectively discuss God's qualities. God is, for the purpose of this discussion, ACTUALLY omnipotent a. You can't insert your own little footnote that goes "or so God claims"... We are discussing this from the standpoint that the Christian God actually exists and IS ACTUALLY God.

Yes, and your side still has yet to convince one person that we must accept your sides argument to be able to attempt to argue against it.

I'm sorry, but this example is lacking.

Friend was the closest thing I could think of for "believes I'm real and worships me" that applied to humans.---Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!

#133hunter_gohanPosted 11/10/2012 2:59:07 PM

It's a very similar reason why X/X = 1, but not when X = infinity. You think you can just go replacing one with the other at will whenever YOU feel it suits your argument. You can't.

My reply to this would be dependent upon your answer to the first question in my last post. Your right though, how dare I compare one judge to another. Complete false equivalency there :rolleyes: I don't know why you guys think being omnipotent or omniscient gives you free reign to commit all the evil acts you want while still somehow being good.

No, you are strawmanning it.

I am directly replying to other Christians. It's not my fault you guys have ~33,000 different denominations sometimes with wildly different beliefs.

Well damn, I guess it's a good thing I'm NOT claiming that.

You mean it wasn't you who posted that link to wikipedia? The problem I believe is that you're confusing "justice" with "justice". That is, you're confusing ": the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity" with ": the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

With just being : ": acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous <a just war>".

Sure, revenge was the administration of law in certain societies. So was Stalin sending political prisoners to Siberia. Neither are acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good.

Exactly who is claiming that WE should institute this? Not me. So again, stop strawmanning.

The fact that you don't want your idea of "justice" to be implemented in our justice system belays the fact that it isn't justice.

The premise of justice that I am working with is an entirely reflexive and form of justice based on the predicate of perfect knowledge. Not only is it nothing like "You made me mad, therefore I kill you," or anything else that is uneven, but it does not apply AT ALL to anything else besides a situation involving perfect knowledge, and your continued mixing and mashing around of the two concepts to make both look silly is just a big game to make yourself look right without any real substance.

It doesn't matter how much knowledge you have. That doesn't make revenge just.---Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!

#134Polish_CrusaderPosted 11/10/2012 10:14:16 PM

ilsunshangxiang posted...

actually there's nowhere in the bible that says "god loves everyone"

-God loves everyone in the entire world (emphasis on THE WORLD)John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

-There is nothing that can separate us from the love of god while on earth."Romans 8:37-39 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

-God has a lot of mercy and patience for us sinners on earth because he loves us so much to give us the opportunity to turn to him."Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, evenwhen we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—"

-Not even close to the truth, mr. sunshang.

#135ShebeskiiPosted 11/11/2012 10:02:11 PM(edited)

kts123 posted...

That doesn't actually answer my question.

The Holy Spirit clearly speaks to everyone, so I do know everyone has contact with God in some form at some point during their life. I think people get too focused on the idea of belief as an intellectual position. "To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. [Psalm 14:1] In scripture, the fool is someone who is set against God, not necessarily someone who is unintelligent, e.g. Satan. This psalm states "says in his heart." There is a difference between having a mistaken intellectual position, and having a heart bent against God. So while this may sound odd, I do believe there are possibly 'atheists in the Church' -- people who deep down know and love the Lord, but have succumb to weakness of flesh.

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! -Romans 7:22-25

Of course I would be lying if I tried to pass this as more than my personal speculation. I really can't give you a definite answer because I don't fully understand it myself yet. But, as the scripture I quoted previously says, it's not my place to judge those outside the church (thankfully!)

This assertion that everyone has come into contact with God, and those that haven't must be corrupted deniers who have hardened their hearts to Him is one of the most disingenuous and hypocritical, as well as nonsensical, arguments to ever grace a piece of paper or computer monitor. You could say the same thing about any and all deities that command reverence and obedience from every culture and time period in history. It's a complete appeal to emotion and is loaded from the start to invoke guilt. It's truth that you have had contact, you are just a filthy fool who has denied the signs and the grace of God.

I have a quote for you and will bold the important part. It illuminates the depravity of such a position.

"We first have to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to grab us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection."---That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens

#136kts123Posted 11/12/2012 3:12:47 PM

This assertion that everyone has come into contact with God, and those that haven't must be corrupted deniers who have hardened their hearts to Him is one of the most disingenuous and hypocritical, as well as nonsensical, arguments to ever grace a piece of paper or computer monitor. You could say the same thing about any and all deities that command reverence and obedience from every culture and time period in history. It's a complete appeal to emotion and is loaded from the start to invoke guilt. It's truth that you have had contact, you are just a filthy fool who has denied the signs and the grace of God.

Firstly, I made it very clear that it is not our place to pass judgement on those outside the church. Scripture specifically forbids that. Further, it is not an emotional appeal, it is an unsupported assertion not intended to persuade.

Consider the following: T is the set of all truths, and C is the set of all communicable truths, and K is the set of all knowable truths.

You are assuming that all members of T and K must be members of C. It is entirely conceivable for an element to be a member of T and K, but not C. In otherwords, some true concepts may not be communicable, even though they are knowable and true. For an element that is a member of T and K, but not C, it becomes non-nonsensical to attempt to persuade someone, since by definition it is not a communicable truth. Failing to be an element of C does not invalidate its membership of K and T.

#137ShebeskiiPosted 11/12/2012 10:24:03 PM(edited)

kts123 posted...

This assertion that everyone has come into contact with God, and those that haven't must be corrupted deniers who have hardened their hearts to Him is one of the most disingenuous and hypocritical, as well as nonsensical, arguments to ever grace a piece of paper or computer monitor. You could say the same thing about any and all deities that command reverence and obedience from every culture and time period in history. It's a complete appeal to emotion and is loaded from the start to invoke guilt. It's truth that you have had contact, you are just a filthy fool who has denied the signs and the grace of God.

Firstly, I made it very clear that it is not our place to pass judgement on those outside the church. Scripture specifically forbids that. Further, it is not an emotional appeal, it is an unsupported assertion not intended to persuade.

Consider the following: T is the set of all truths, and C is the set of all communicable truths, and K is the set of all knowable truths.

You are assuming that all members of T and K must be members of C. It is entirely conceivable for an element to be a member of T and K, but not C. In otherwords, some true concepts may not be communicable, even though they are knowable and true. For an element that is a member of T and K, but not C, it becomes non-nonsensical to attempt to persuade someone, since by definition it is not a communicable truth. Failing to be an element of C does not invalidate its membership of K and T.

Your argument rests on the premise that there exists knowable truths that are not communicable. That premise is false. Your argument is entirely metaphysical and has no basis in how language, memory and cognition function in the world. Your argument assumes that we knowledge can be acquired without the use of communication, or that knowledge itself is somehow separate or fundamentally different from communication. It also sets up a situation where any idea that is quite obviously broken at the foundation is in fact just not communicable, and must be self realized.

You're dancing with metaphysics and it doesn't make any sense. You're structuring the world into concepts that can't be tested or falsified. It's a self referential web of ideas with no foundation or substantiation.

The very act of compartmentalizing truth into "communicable" and "knowable" is a fallacy right from the start. It doesn't matter if the rest of the argument makes sense if one link in the chain is fundamentally flawed.---That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens

#138kts123Posted 11/13/2012 3:26:03 PM(edited)

Your argument rests on the premise that there exists knowable truths that are not communicable. That premise is false. Your argument is entirely metaphysical and has no basis in how language, memory and cognition function in the world. Your argument assumes that we knowledge can be acquired without the use of communication, or that knowledge itself is somehow separate or fundamentally different from communication. It also sets up a situation where any idea that is quite obviously broken at the foundation is in fact just not communicable, and must be self realized.

You're dancing with metaphysics and it doesn't make any sense. You're structuring the world into concepts that can't be tested or falsified. It's a self referential web of ideas with no foundation or substantiation.

The very act of compartmentalizing truth into "communicable" and "knowable" is a fallacy right from the start. It doesn't matter if the rest of the argument makes sense if one link in the chain is fundamentally flawed.

I can conceive of several hypothetical situations in which I have incommunicable knowledge. Rather, I should say, knowledge which I am unable to provide sufficient argument to persuade others to believe but by which there was sufficient and sound reason to persuade me to believe. For example, were I to witness something entirely absurd, yet have no solid reputation and no evidence to convince others of what I saw, that knowledge would be incommunicable. I have good reason to believe what I believe, but I am unable to provide a solid convincing argument to persuade others to arrive at the same knowledge in a reasonable fashion.

Lets say you spotted a teapot during a night of star gazing. The teapot is then hit by a massive asteroid and obliterated into nothing. How will you ever convince someone you actually spotted Rustle's Teapot moments before it was destroyed? Your knowledge is sound, but you cannot transfer that knowledge successfully.

Or, glory pot, lets say I'm right and the Holy Spirit is revealed to you tonight. Good luck convincing everyone else. I was an unconvinced atheist myself, and lo and behold, no one believes me either.

#139SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 6:32:40 AM

Firstly, I made it very clear that it is not our place to pass judgement on those outside the church. Scripture specifically forbids that. Further, it is not an emotional appeal, it is an unsupported assertion not intended to persuade.

You do understand, kts, that neither hunter_gohan or Thuggernautz or several of the other posters arguing this point ACTUALLY understand the Biblical worldview, right? They think they are taking enough of the Bible into account, but they aren't. They consistently cobble together a random assortment of pseudo Christian views into one conglomerate view that they base all their anti-Christian rants off of, and that conglomerate view is often the result of the worst they have seen of a whole bunch of self proclaimed Christians out there.

#140SystemafunkPosted 11/15/2012 7:06:17 AM

Ah, ok I see why you would say the omniscience factors in. Quick question though, what happens to people who do not accept Christ into their life because they don't believe he was anything more than a 1st century Jewish carpenter/Rabbi, but who are honestly repentant for what they've done wrong?

I'm not sure. I don't worry too much about that, because I think that most people that aren't willing to accept Christ haven't really been acquainted with the true spirit of Christ. I don't think that all people who call themselves Christian will be saved or are saved, and I also don't think that all people who don't call themselves Christian are not saved, or will not be saved. I tend to think some people out there know Christ even if they do not refer to Him as such, but then, I also think that true, 100% repentance requires at least some form of a belief in God. I also think that people have the chance to repent and accept God at the time of Judgement.

But that was in reply to me calling him unjust. Are you saying we must ignore his actions and accept the claim that he is just err just because? I'm sure Hitler and Stalin also claimed that they were just. In fact, Stalin gave himself the title "Gardener of Human Happiness". Must we now ignore all his actions and assume he is in fact the Gardener of Human Happiness?

Again, the thing that makes God just is that God is omniscient. Theology is generally built from the top down. That is, we start with the most basic assumption, which is that God exists. Then we go further and we say that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Then we say that God interacts with living beings. And so forth. So, naturally, we make the assumption that an omniscient being is just, because that is one thing that omniscience will eventually lead to. So if God exists and does have personal interest in people, then God is actually just.

There is only one God though. And God is an exception and special case in the same way that infinity is a special case in many math operations. God's authority is also THE REASON why people like Hitler and Stalin do not really have that authority. That is, their authority to do such things doesn't exist because no matter how influential or authoritative a mortal being becomes, their authority is always trumped by God. And it isn't because of power, but because of authority, because their lack of authority to do such things exists regardless of and in lieu of God actually exerting His authority in the form of His power. So, we have physical "possession" of things by force and/or by proximity, but we never actually "own" them. Neither are we our own, even though we always have physical self sovereignty. Thus we get the reason for what Christ said to Pilate about authority.

Yes, and your side still has yet to convince one person that we must accept your sides argument to be able to attempt to argue against it.

You certainly don't have to believe, but it would be nice if you accepted the premises for the sake of arguing. Especially if the overall criticism is that it doesn't even make internal sense.

You mean it wasn't you who posted that link to wikipedia?

This is the last thing I am going to reply to because, now that I have a wife and three jobs, I don't have time for more, and it illustrates a point. My point was that I was NOT claiming the existence of an eternal hell, not that I was not claiming that "vengeance" in general was not a form of justice. The problem with eternal punishment is that it can never lead to change. Outside of that though, there really isn't an actual fundamental problem. I do take issue with you not understanding what was fairly obvious that I was saying though. You said some stuff about eternal punishment. I said that wasn't what I was claiming. The wiki page was about vengeance in general being justice.